Thankfully, it\u2019s rare to encounter outright climate denial in public these days. But it is still common to hear justifications for delaying action. <\/p>\n
One of the most pernicious and intellectually lazy arguments is the familiar nugget \u2013 that \u201cIreland\u2019s emissions are too small to matter\u201d. It\u2019s a line still advanced by some politicians and business leaders, and, astonishingly, even appeared recently in a report<\/a> published by the Irish Academy of Engineering. <\/p>\n This argument fails on every level \u2013 mathematical, physical, legal, moral \u2013 and defies basic common sense. <\/p>\n Climate change isn\u2019t a pass\/fail exam, where we have lost if we cross a threshold. It\u2019s a cumulative problem: every tonne of carbon dioxide we emit adds to the blanket of heat-trapping gases around the planet, doing permanent and measurable harm. <\/p>\n Every tonne causes extra warming that melts ice, intensifies rainfall, worsens droughts and acidifies the ocean a little more. In climate litigation cases around the world, courts are recognising this link, attributing damages from specific emitters to specific climate impacts.<\/p>\n [\u00a0Cop30: Talks lead to hope but \u2018not nearly enough\u2019 action on climate crisisOpens in new window<\/a>\u00a0]<\/p>\n Mathematically speaking, climate change results from the cumulative choices of billions of people, so every source looks small if you zoom in close enough. Even Taylor Swift\u2019s private jet, or a single coal-fired power plant in China, are irrelevant in isolation. <\/p>\n But the logical outcome of this reasoning is that nothing and no one is responsible. And this flawed logic scales all the way up: no country\u2019s emissions alone \u201cmatter\u201d, not even China\u2019s. If China abandoned all fossil fuel use tomorrow, the world would still warm beyond 1.5 degrees within a few years unless others followed. <\/p>\n This is the essence of what is known as a collective-action problem. In these cases, everyone benefits if everyone takes action, but actors alone cannot benefit from their individual efforts, and so have an incentive to free ride on the efforts of others. These problems can only be solved through co-operation.<\/p>\n That is precisely what international legal and diplomatic efforts on climate action are designed to achieve. The Paris Agreement is built on this principle \u2013 all countries must pursue their \u201chighest possible ambition\u201d in a collective effort to limit warming. <\/p>\n The International Court of Justice, in a landmark opinion this year, made the same point explicitly: no state may claim its emissions are \u201ctoo small to matter\u201d. Each has a duty of due diligence to prevent harm, in proportion to its capacity. <\/p>\n Practically speaking, limiting global warming simply can\u2019t be achieved without efforts from small countries. More than one-third of global emissions come from countries which individually emit less than 2 per cent of the global total. <\/p>\n So, Ireland\u2019s obligations to co-operate productively with the international process are clear. But even leaving law and physics aside, the strategic, diplomatic and moral cases to take a leading role are also obvious. <\/p>\n Even in our own self-interest, protecting ourselves from climate damages requires other countries to cut their own emissions \u2013 we cannot adapt our way out of this. But how can we advocate for this on the international stage if we ourselves refuse because our emissions are \u201ctoo small\u201d to matter? Clearly, we can\u2019t \u2013 shirking responsibility undermines everyone\u2019s willingness to act. <\/p>\n